SEPP 65 & Residential Flat Design Code Review - Australian ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5.2 Would defining different contexts be useful? What combination ofconsiderations should be used? Which key components of the Design Codeshould include variations for different contexts, for example buildingseparation, deep soil zones and natural ventilation?Yes, greater clarification is required as it is clear that a CBD context is different to aninner urban or suburban context. The standards or guidelines of the RFDC will haveto reflect these differences. Demonstration by examples would assist planners anddevelopers.5.3 How could the development site be better defined under the Design Code,what key elements should be included in any definition? Should some keycomponents of the Design Code apply to the whole of a site? Are there somecomponents which should only apply to part of a site, for example in the caseof master planned sites?Definition of development sites would be helpful as the issues with larger masterplanned sites can be very different from individual buildings or smaller sites.Demonstration by examples would assist planners and developers.5.4 What other information should be included in case studies? Would casestudies for additional building types be useful? What additional key buildingtypes should be included?Additional information should reflect the requirements in the RFDC so that adeveloper can understand how the ‘rules of thumb’ can be applied and varied forindividual sites. See 2.3.1.The SEPP should also cover boarding houses, studentaccommodation, serviced apartments and two-storey townhouses. Demonstration byexamples would assist planners and developers.5.5 Should more guidance be provided on determining FSR and the relationshipbetween FSR and height controls?Yes. More flexibility needs to be given to encourage rooftop communal open space(COS) in areas where adequate usable communal or open space is not available atground or podium level. At the precinct planning stage FSRs should be set to be lessthan the allowed envelope; this will require greater design flexibility. Guidance on theGFA that is permitted within the envelope should take into account the new standardinstrument definition of Gross Floor Area.Demonstration by examples would assist planners and developers. Building heightexpressed in storeys might be a more practical solution. This allows for greaterflexibility on sloping sites and the incorporation of articulation into the top floor, withsafeguards against potential manipulation by developers.5.6 Should the current building depth numerics be amended? Should buildingdepth be varied for different site orientations? Should there be a depthrequirement for specific residential building types and what should they be?The building depth control is irrelevant in the detailed design of residential flatbuildings and should only be used at the precinct design stage. At this point thecurrent depth range of 10-18m is appropriate.Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)SEPP 65 & Residential Flat Design Code Review24 February 20129
The Department’s own research on single aspect apartments has indicated that thecurrent ratio of ceiling height to room depth is too generous based on the minimum2.1m window/external door height with the result being affected by external walls,screens and balustrades. A sliding scale of ceiling height to room depth might makeassessment easier with alternate natural ventilation models (eg cross plenums etc) apossibility if demonstrated by detailed engineering that will form part of an approval. Itis noted that LEP controls expressed in metres restrict the the overall building heightsand the possibility of additional ceiling heights. It is noted that BASIX recommends a15m glass to glass maximum for apartments.Cross ventilation is currently 5:1 width to depth glass to glass, however internalarrangements will impact actual cross flow. The suggested guideline is 12-15m depthwith maximums and averages in the guidelines.High rise (over 6 stories) and specific urban or geographic areas require differentconsideration on wind exposure.Demonstration by examples would assist planners and developers.5.7 Would additional information and diagrams assist with determiningappropriate building separation distances? What type of information would bemost useful? Is there a need to address separation between residential andnon residential buildings? How could this be best achieved?Context is an important consideration in the development of building separation. Thecurrent RFDC has adapted a guideline used by councils such as the City of Sydney;it relates more to inner urban areas and represents a minimum standard. On largersites master planning will be required and demonstration by examples would assistplanners and developers. Solar access and natural ventilation for a newdevelopment and also in relation to existing and potential future development willalso impact on building separation and again demonstration by examples wouldassist planners and developers.5.8 Should additional information be provided about how to consider buildingseparation relative to side and rear setbacks? Are there particular scenariosthat should be specifically addressed?The RFDC needs to address varying contexts and the desirability of party walls insome urban contexts; demonstration by examples would assist planners anddevelopers. Most metropolitan councils have controls including minimum site andfrontage controls, however additional minimums within the RFDC could be helpful ifthere is scope for context variation.6 Residential Flat Design Code – Part 26.1 Would a comprehensive checklist be helpful in providing guidance for siteanalysis and responding to context? What key headings should be included?Should the Residential Flat Design Code recommend that registeredlandscape architects are required to be involved in preparation of a siteanalysis and in the early stages of design? Are there any other areas ofguidance that would benefit this section?Australian Institute of Architects (NSW)SEPP 65 & Residential Flat Design Code Review24 February 201210
Page 1 and 2: Australian Institute ofArchitectsSE
Page 3 and 4: Where does the Institute rank as a
Page 5 and 6: CONTENTSPageA GENERAL 1Guidelines o
Page 8 and 9: the area as a whole. The structure
Page 10 and 11: outside the SEPP when in specific t
Page 12 and 13: In areas of significant development
Page 16 and 17: A checklist would set a minimum sta
Page 18 and 19: example access to daylight and natu
Page 20: 8.2 Should controls be prepared for

SEPP 65 & Residential Flat Design Code Review - Australian ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?